IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT Pope Benedict DID NOT RELEASE HIS POWERFUL MESSAGE THROUGH THE VATICAN BUT INSTEAD RELEASED IT THROUGH GERMAN AND AMERICAN NEWS SOURCES, THE REACTION ON THE PART OF THE SUPPORTERS OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL HAS BEEN WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT, HOSTILITY

Benedict’s powerful message—and the bid to suppress it

By Phil Lawler (bio – articles – email) | Apr 11, 2019

CATHOLIC CULTURE.ORG

After six years of public silence, broken only by a few mild personal comments, Pope-emeritus Benedict has spoken out dramatically, with a 6,000-word essay on sexual abuse that has been described as a sort of post-papal encyclical. Clearly the retired Pontiff felt compelled to write: to say things that were not being said. Benedict thought the subject was too important to allow for his continued silence.

Vatican communications officials thought differently, it seems. Benedict’s essay became public on Wednesday night, but on Thursday morning there was no mention of the extraordinary statement in the Vatican’s news outlets. (Later in the day the Vatican News service issued a report summarizing Benedict’s essay; it appeared “below the fold” on the Vatican News web page, below a headline story on relief efforts for cyclone victims in Mozambique.) For that matter it is noteworthy that the former Pope’s statement was not published by a Vatican outlet in the first place; it first appeared in the German Klerusblatt and the Italian secular newspaper Corriere della Sera, along with English translations by the Catholic News Agency and National Catholic Register.

Benedict reports that he consulted with Pope Francis before publishing the essay. He does not say that the current Pope encouraged his writing, and it is difficult to imagine that Pope Francis was enthusiastic about his predecessor’s work on this issue. The two Popes, past and present, are miles apart in their analysis of the sex-abuse scandal. Nowhere does Benedict mention the “clericalism” that Pope Francis has cited as the root cause of the problem, and rarely has Pope Francis mentioned the moral breakdown that Benedict blames for the scandal.

The silence of the official Vatican media is a clear indication that Benedict’s essay has not found a warm welcome at the St. Martha residence. Even more revealing is the frantic reaction of the Pope’s most ardent supporters, who have flooded the internet with their embarrassed protests, their complaints that Benedict is sadly mistaken when he suggests that the social and ecclesiastical uproar of the 1960s gave rise to the epidemic of abuse.

Those protests against Benedict—the mock-sorrowful sighs that we all know sexual abuse is not a function of rampant sexual immorality—should be seen as signals to the secular media. And secular outlets, sympathetic to the causes of the sexual revolution, will duly carry the message that Benedict is out of touch, that his thesis has already been disproven.

But facts, as John Adams observed, are stubborn things. And the facts testify unambiguously in Benedict’s favor. Something happened in the 1960s and thereafter to precipitate a rash of clerical abuse. Yes, the problem had arisen in the past. But every responsible survey has shown a stunning spike in clerical abuse, occurring just after the tumult that Benedict describes in his essay. Granted, the former Pontiff has not proven, with apodictic certainty, that the collapse of Catholic moral teaching led to clerical abuse. But to dismiss his thesis airily, as if it had been tested and rejected, is downright dishonest.

Facts are facts, no matter who proclaims them. The abuse crisis did arise in the muddled aftermath of Vatican II. Benedict puts forward a theory to explain why that happened. His theory is not congenial to the ideas of liberal Catholic intellectuals, but that fact does not excuse their attempt to suppress a discussion, to deny basic realities. (Come to think of it, this is not the first time that the public defenders of Pope Francis have encouraged the public to ignore facts, to entertain the possibility that 2+2=5.)

That message—the message of Pope-emeritus Benedict—is a striking departure from the messages that have been issued by so many Church leaders. The former Pope does not write about “policies and procedures;” he does not suggest a technical or legalistic solution to a moral problem. On the contrary he insists that we focus our attention entirely on that moral problem and then move on to a solution which must also, necessarily, be found in the moral realm.

As background for his message, Benedict recalls the 1960s, when “an egregious event occurred, on a scale unprecedented in history.” He writes about the breakdown in public morality, which was unfortunately accompanied by the “dissolution of the moral teaching authority of the Church.” This combination of events left the Church largely defenseless, he says.

In an unsparing analysis, Benedict writes of the problems in priestly formation, as “homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in seminaries.” He acknowledges that a visitation of American seminaries produced no major improvements. He charges that some bishops “rejected the Catholic tradition as a whole.” He sees the turmoil as a fundamental challenge to the essence of the faith, observing that if there are no absolute truths—no eternal verities for which one might willingly give one’s life—then the concept of Christian martyrdom seems absurd. He writes: “The fact that martyrdom is no longer morally necessary in the theory advocated [by liberal Catholic theologians] shows that the very essence of Christianity is at stake here.”

“A world without God can only be a world without meaning,” Benedict warns. “Power is then the only principle.” In such a world, how can society guard against those who use their powers over others for self-gratification? “Why did pedophilia reach such proportions?” Benedict asks. He answers: “Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God.”

It is by restoring the presence of God, then, that Benedict suggests the Church must respond to this unprecedented crisis. He connects the breakdown in morality with a lack of reverence in worship, “a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery.” Mourning the grotesque ways in which predatory priests have blasphemed the Blessed Sacrament, he writes that “we must do all we can to protect the gift of the Holy Eucharist from abuse.”

In short Pope-emeritus Benedict draws the connection between the lack of reverence for God and the lack of appreciation for human dignity—between the abuse of liturgy and the abuse of children. Faithful Catholics should recognize the logic and force of that message. And indeed Benedict voices his confidence that the most loyal sons and daughters of the Church will work—are already working—toward the renewal he awaits:

If we look around and listen with an attentive heart, we can find witnesses everywhere today, especially among ordinary people, but also in the high ranks of the Church, who stand up for God with their life and suffering.

Still the renewal will not come easily; it will entail suffering. For Benedict, that suffering will include the waves of hostility that his essay has provoked, the dismissive attitude of much lesser theologians, the campaign to write him off as an elderly crank. No doubt the former Pope anticipated the opposition that his essay would encounter. He chose to “send out a strong message” anyway, because suffering for the truth is a powerful form of Christian witness.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

AT LAST Pope Benedict BREAKS HIS SILENCE, HE SPEAKS TO US WORDS THAT CAN STRENGTHEN OR FAITH AND HOPE. LET US PRAY FOR HIM AS HE GROWS PHYSICALLY MORE FRAIL BUT OBVIOUSLY RETAINS SHARPNESS OF INTELLECT. LET US HOPE THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK TO US.

Featured Image

Pope Emeritus Benedict


NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCHFAITHGENDERHOMOSEXUALITYMARRIAGEWed Apr 10, 2019 – 7:32 pm EST

Pope Emeritus Benedict breaks silence on abuse crisis: full text

 Catholic ChurchClergy Sex Abuse ScandalsNatural LawPope Benedict XviSexual Abuse Scandals

April 10, 2019 (EWTN) – On February 21 to 24, at the invitation of Pope Francis, the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences gathered at the Vatican to discuss the current crisis of the faith and of the Church; a crisis experienced throughout the world after shocking revelations of clerical abuse perpetrated against minors.

The extent and gravity of the reported incidents has deeply distressed priests as well as laity, and has caused more than a few to call into question the very Faith of the Church. It was necessary to send out a strong message, and seek out a new beginning, so to make the Church again truly credible as a light among peoples and as a force in service against the powers of destruction.

Since I myself had served in a position of responsibility as shepherd of the Church at the time of the public outbreak of the crisis, and during the run-up to it, I had to ask myself – even though, as emeritus, I am no longer directly responsible – what I could contribute to a new beginning.

Thus, after the meeting of the presidents of the bishops’ conferences was announced, I compiled some notes by which I might contribute one or two remarks to assist in this difficult hour. 

Having contacted the Secretary of State, Cardinal [Pietro] Parolin and the Holy Father [Pope Francis] himself, it seemed appropriate to publish this text in the Klerusblatt [a monthly periodical for clergy in mostly Bavarian dioceses].

My work is divided into three parts. 

In the first part, I aim to present briefly the wider social context of the question, without which the problem cannot be understood. I try to show that in the 1960s an egregious event occurred, on a scale unprecedented in history. It could be said that in the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsed entirely, and a new normalcy arose that has by now been the subject of laborious attempts at disruption. 

In the second part, I aim to point out the effects of this situation on the formation of priests and on the lives of priests.

Finally, in the third part, I would like to develop some perspectives for a proper response on the part of the Church.

I.

(1) The matter begins with the state-prescribed and supported introduction of children and youths into the nature of sexuality. In Germany, the then-Minister of Health, Ms. [Käte] Strobel, had a film made in which everything that had previously not been allowed to be shown publicly, including sexual intercourse, was now shown for the purpose of education. What at first was only intended for the sexual education of young people consequently was widely accepted as a feasible option.

Similar effects were achieved by the “Sexkoffer” published by the Austrian government [A controversial ‘suitcase’ of sex education materials used in Austrian schools in the late 1980s]. Sexual and pornographic movies then became a common occurrence, to the point that they were screened at newsreel theaters [Bahnhofskinos]. I still remember seeing, as I was walking through the city of Regensburg one day, crowds of people lining up in front of a large cinema, something we had previously only seen in times of war, when some special allocation was to be hoped for. I also remember arriving in the city on Good Friday in the year 1970 and seeing all the billboards plastered up with a large poster of two completely naked people in a close embrace.

Among the freedoms that the Revolution of 1968 sought to fight for was this all-out sexual freedom, one which no longer conceded any norms.

The mental collapse was also linked to a propensity for violence. That is why sex films were no longer allowed on airplanes because violence would break out among the small community of passengers. And since the clothing of that time equally provoked aggression, school principals also made attempts at introducing school uniforms with a view to facilitating a climate of learning.

Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ’68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate.

For the young people in the Church, but not only for them, this was in many ways a very difficult time. I have always wondered how young people in this situation could approach the priesthood and accept it, with all its ramifications. The extensive collapse of the next generation of priests in those years and the very high number of laicizations were a consequence of all these developments.

(2) At the same time, independently of this development, Catholic moral theology suffered a collapse that rendered the Church defenseless against these changes in society. I will try to outline briefly the trajectory of this development.

Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholic moral theology was largely founded on natural law, while Sacred Scripture was only cited for background or substantiation. In the Council’s struggle for a new understanding of Revelation, the natural law option was largely abandoned, and a moral theology based entirely on the Bible was demanded.

I still remember how the Jesuit faculty in Frankfurt trained a highly gifted young Father (Bruno Schüller) with the purpose of developing a morality based entirely on Scripture. Father Schüller’s beautiful dissertation shows a first step towards building a morality based on Scripture. Father Schüller was then sent to America for further studies and came back with the realization that from the Bible alone morality could not be expressed systematically. He then attempted a more pragmatic moral theology, without being able to provide an answer to the crisis of morality.

In the end, it was chiefly the hypothesis that morality was to be exclusively determined by the purposes of human action that prevailed. While the old phrase “the end justifies the means” was not confirmed in this crude form, its way of thinking had become definitive. Consequently, there could no longer be anything that constituted an absolute good, any more than anything fundamentally evil; [there could be] only relative value judgments. There no longer was the [absolute] good, but only the relatively better, contingent on the moment and on circumstances.

The crisis of the justification and presentation of Catholic morality reached dramatic proportions in the late ’80s and ’90s. On January 5, 1989, the “Cologne Declaration,” signed by 15 Catholic professors of theology, was published. It focused on various crisis points in the relationship between the episcopal magisterium and the task of theology. [Reactions to] this text, which at first did not extend beyond the usual level of protests, very rapidly grew into an outcry against the Magisterium of the Church and mustered, audibly and visibly, the global protest potential against the expected doctrinal texts of John Paul II (cf. D. Mieth, Kölner Erklärung, LThK, VI3, p. 196) [LTHK is the Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, a German-language “Lexicon of Theology and the Church,” whose editors included Karl Rahner and Cardinal Walter Kasper.]

Pope John Paul II, who knew very well the situation of moral theology and followed it closely, commissioned work on an encyclical that would set these things right again. It was published under the title “Veritatis splendor” on August 6, 1993, and it triggered vehement backlashes on the part of moral theologians. Before it, the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” already had persuasively presented, in a systematic fashion, morality as proclaimed by the Church.

I shall never forget how then-leading German moral theologian Franz Böckle, who, having returned to his native Switzerland after his retirement, announced in view of the possible decisions of the encyclical “Veritatis splendor” that if the encyclical should determine that there were actions which were always and under all circumstances to be classified as evil, he would challenge it with all the resources at his disposal.

It was God, the Merciful, that spared him from having to put his resolution into practice; Böckle died on July 8, 1991. The encyclical was published on August 6, 1993 and did indeed include the determination that there were actions that can never become good.

The pope was fully aware of the importance of this decision at that moment and for this part of his text, he had once again consulted leading specialists who did not take part in the editing of the encyclical. He knew that he must leave no doubt about the fact that the moral calculus involved in balancing goods must respect a final limit. There are goods that are never subject to trade-offs.

There are values which must never be abandoned for a greater value and even surpass the preservation of physical life. There is martyrdom. God is [about] more than mere physical survival. A life that would be bought by the denial of God, a life that is based on a final lie, is a non-life.

Martyrdom is a basic category of Christian existence. The fact that martyrdom is no longer morally necessary in the theory advocated by Böckle and many others shows that the very essence of Christianity is at stake here.

In moral theology, however, another question had meanwhile become pressing: The hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church should have final competence (“infallibility”) only in matters concerning the faith itself gained widespread acceptance; (in this view) questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church. There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussion. But there is a minimum set of morals which is indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith and which must be defended if faith is not to be reduced to a theory but rather to be recognized in its claim to concrete life.

All this makes apparent just how fundamentally the authority of the Church in matters of morality is called into question. Those who deny the Church a final teaching competence in this area force her to remain silent precisely where the boundary between truth and lies is at stake.

Independently of this question, in many circles of moral theology the hypothesis was expounded that the Church does not and cannot have her own morality. The argument being that all moral hypotheses would also know parallels in other religions and therefore a Christian property of morality could not exist. But the question of the unique nature of a biblical morality is not answered by the fact that for every single sentence somewhere, a parallel can also be found in other religions. Rather, it is about the whole of biblical morality, which as such is new and different from its individual parts.

The moral doctrine of Holy Scripture has its uniqueness ultimately predicated in its cleaving to the image of God, in faith in the one God who showed himself in Jesus Christ and who lived as a human being. The Decalogue is an application of the biblical faith in God to human life. The image of God and morality belong together and thus result in the particular change of the Christian attitude towards the world and human life. Moreover, Christianity has been described from the beginning with the word hodós [Greek for a road, in the New Testament often used in the sense of a path of progress].

Faith is a journey and a way of life. In the old Church, the catechumenate was created as a habitat against an increasingly demoralized culture, in which the distinctive and fresh aspects of the Christian way of life were practiced and at the same time protected from the common way of life. I think that even today something like catechumenal communities are necessary so that Christian life can assert itself in its own way.

II.

Initial Ecclesial Reactions 

(1) The long-prepared and ongoing process of dissolution of the Christian concept of morality was, as I have tried to show, marked by an unprecedented radicalism in the 1960s. This dissolution of the moral teaching authority of the Church necessarily had to have an effect on the diverse areas of the Church. In the context of the meeting of the presidents of the episcopal conferences from all over the world with Pope Francis, the question of priestly life, as well as that of seminaries, is of particular interest. As regards the problem of preparation for priestly ministry in seminaries, there is in fact a far-reaching breakdown of the previous form of this preparation.

In various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries. In one seminary in southern Germany, candidates for the priesthood and candidates for the lay ministry of the pastoral specialist [Pastoralreferent] lived together. At the common meals, seminarians and pastoral specialists ate together, the married among the laymen sometimes accompanied by their wives and children, and on occasion by their girlfriends. The climate in this seminary could not provide support for preparation to the priestly vocation. The Holy See knew of such problems, without being informed precisely. As a first step, an Apostolic Visitation was arranged of seminaries in the United States.

As the criteria for the selection and appointment of bishops had also been changed after the Second Vatican Council, the relationship of bishops to their seminaries was very different, too. Above all, a criterion for the appointment of new bishops was now their “conciliarity,” which of course could be understood to mean rather different things.

Indeed, in many parts of the Church, conciliar attitudes were understood to mean having a critical or negative attitude towards the hitherto existing tradition, which was now to be replaced by a new, radically open relationship with the world. One bishop, who had previously been seminary rector, had arranged for the seminarians to be shown pornographic films, allegedly with the intention of thus making them resistant to behavior contrary to the faith.

There were — not only in the United States of America — individual bishops who rejected the Catholic tradition as a whole and sought to bring about a kind of new, modern “Catholicity” in their dioceses. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in not a few seminaries, students caught reading my books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.

The Visitation that now took place brought no new insights, apparently because various powers had joined forces to conceal the true situation. A second Visitation was ordered and brought considerably more insights, but on the whole failed to achieve any outcomes. Nonetheless, since the 1970s the situation in seminaries has generally improved. And yet, only isolated cases of a new strengthening of priestly vocations came about as the overall situation had taken a different turn.

(2) The question of pedophilia, as I recall, did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s. In the meantime, it had already become a public issue in the U.S., such that the bishops in Rome sought help, since canon law, as it is written in the new (1983) Code, did not seem sufficient for taking the necessary measures.

Rome and the Roman canonists at first had difficulty with these concerns; in their opinion the temporary suspension from priestly office had to be sufficient to bring about purification and clarification. This could not be accepted by the American bishops, because the priests thus remained in the service of the bishop, and thereby could be taken to be [still] directly associated with him. Only slowly, a renewal and deepening of the deliberately loosely constructed criminal law of the new Code began to take shape.

In addition, however, there was a fundamental problem in the perception of criminal law. Only so-called guarantorism [a kind of procedural protectionism] was still regarded as “conciliar.” This means that above all the rights of the accused had to be guaranteed, to an extent that factually excluded any conviction at all. As a counterweight against the often-inadequate defense options available to accused theologians, their right to defense by way of guarantorism was extended to such an extent that convictions were hardly possible.

Allow me a brief excursus at this point. In light of the scale of pedophilic misconduct, a word of Jesus has again come to attention which says: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42).

The phrase “the little ones” in the language of Jesus means the common believers who can be confounded in their faith by the intellectual arrogance of those who think they are clever. So here Jesus protects the deposit of the faith with an emphatic threat of punishment to those who do it harm.

The modern use of the sentence is not in itself wrong, but it must not obscure the original meaning. In that meaning, it becomes clear, contrary to any guarantorism, that it is not only the right of the accused that is important and requires a guarantee. Great goods such as the Faith are equally important.

A balanced canon law that corresponds to the whole of Jesus’ message must therefore not only provide a guarantee for the accused, the respect for whom is a legal good. It must also protect the Faith, which is also an important legal asset. A properly formed canon law must therefore contain a double guarantee — legal protection of the accused, legal protection of the good at stake. If today one puts forward this inherently clear conception, one generally falls on deaf ears when it comes to the question of the protection of the Faith as a legal good. In the general awareness of the law, the Faith no longer appears to have the rank of a good requiring protection. This is an alarming situation which must be considered and taken seriously by the pastors of the Church.

I would now like to add, to the brief notes on the situation of priestly formation at the time of the public outbreak of the crisis, a few remarks regarding the development of canon law in this matter.

In principle, the Congregation of the Clergy is responsible for dealing with crimes committed by priests. But since guarantorism dominated the situation to a large extent at the time, I agreed with Pope John Paul II that it was appropriate to assign the competence for these offences to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the title “Delicta maiora contra fidem.

This arrangement also made it possible to impose the maximum penalty, i.e., expulsion from the clergy, which could not have been imposed under other legal provisions. This was not a trick to be able to impose the maximum penalty, but is a consequence of the importance of the Faith for the Church. In fact, it is important to see that such misconduct by clerics ultimately damages the Faith.

Only where Faith no longer determines the actions of man are such offenses possible.

The severity of the punishment, however, also presupposes a clear proof of the offense — this aspect of guarantorism remains in force.

In other words, in order to impose the maximum penalty lawfully, a genuine criminal process is required. But both the dioceses and the Holy See were overwhelmed by such a requirement. We therefore formulated a minimum level of criminal proceedings and left open the possibility that the Holy See itself would take over the trial where the diocese or the metropolitan administration is unable to do so. In each case, the trial would have to be reviewed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in order to guarantee the rights of the accused. Finally, in the Feria IV (i.e., the assembly of the members of the Congregation), we established an appeal instance in order to provide for the possibility of an appeal.

Because all of this actually went beyond the capacities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and because delays arose which had to be prevented owing to the nature of the matter, Pope Francis has undertaken further reforms.

III.

(1) What must be done? Perhaps we should create another Church for things to work out? Well, that experiment has already been undertaken and has already failed. Only obedience and love for our Lord Jesus Christ can point the way. So let us first try to understand anew and from within [ourselves] what the Lord wants, and has wanted with us.

First, I would suggest the following: If we really wanted to summarize very briefly the content of the Faith as laid down in the Bible, we might do so by saying that the Lord has initiated a narrative of love with us and wants to subsume all creation in it. The counterforce against evil, which threatens us and the whole world, can ultimately only consist in our entering into this love. It is the real counterforce against evil. The power of evil arises from our refusal to love God. He who entrusts himself to the love of God is redeemed. Our being not redeemed is a consequence of our inability to love God. Learning to love God is therefore the path of human redemption.

Let us now try to unpack this essential content of God’s revelation a little more. We might then say that the first fundamental gift that Faith offers us is the certainty that God exists.

A world without God can only be a world without meaning. For where, then, does everything that is come from? In any case, it has no spiritual purpose. It is somehow simply there and has neither any goal nor any sense. Then there are no standards of good or evil. Then only what is stronger than the other can assert itself. Power is then the only principle. Truth does not count, it actually does not exist. Only if things have a spiritual reason, are intended and conceived — only if there is a Creator God who is good and wants the good — can the life of man also have meaning.

That there is God as creator and as the measure of all things is first and foremost a primordial need. But a God who would not express Himself at all, who would not make Himself known, would remain a presumption and could thus not determine the form [Gestalt] of our life.

But a God who would not express himself at all, who would not make himself known, would remain an assumption and could thus not determine the form of our life. For God to be really God in this deliberate creation, we must look to Him to express Himself in some way. He has done so in many ways, but decisively in the call that went to Abraham and gave people in search of God the orientation that leads beyond all expectation: God Himself becomes creature, speaks as man with us human beings.

In this way the sentence “God is” ultimately turns into a truly joyous message, precisely because He is more than understanding, because He creates — and is — love. To once more make people aware of this is the first and fundamental task entrusted to us by the Lord.

A society without God — a society that does not know Him and treats Him as non-existent — is a society that loses its measure. In our day, the catchphrase of God’s death was coined. When God does die in a society, it becomes free, we were assured. In reality, the death of God in a society also means the end of freedom, because what dies is the purpose that provides orientation. And because the compass disappears that points us in the right direction by teaching us to distinguish good from evil. Western society is a society in which God is absent in the public sphere and has nothing left to offer it. And that is why it is a society in which the measure of humanity is increasingly lost. At individual points it becomes suddenly apparent that what is evil and destroys man has become a matter of course.

That is the case with pedophilia. It was theorized only a short time ago as quite legitimate, but it has spread further and further. And now we realize with shock that things are happening to our children and young people that threaten to destroy them. The fact that this could also spread in the Church and among priests ought to disturb us in particular.

Why did pedophilia reach such proportions? Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God. We Christians and priests also prefer not to talk about God, because this speech does not seem to be practical. After the upheaval of the Second World War, we in Germany had still expressly placed our Constitution under the responsibility to God as a guiding principle. Half a century later, it was no longer possible to include responsibility to God as a guiding principle in the European constitution. God is regarded as the party concern of a small group and can no longer stand as the guiding principle for the community as a whole. This decision reflects the situation in the West, where God has become the private affair of a minority.

A paramount task, which must result from the moral upheavals of our time, is that we ourselves once again begin to live by God and unto Him. Above all, we ourselves must learn again to recognize God as the foundation of our life instead of leaving Him aside as a somehow ineffective phrase. I will never forget the warning that the great theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar once wrote to me on one of his letter cards. “Do not presuppose the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but present them!”

Indeed, in theology God is often taken for granted as a matter of course, but concretely one does not deal with Him. The theme of God seems so unreal, so far removed from the things that concern us. And yet everything becomes different if one does not presuppose but present God. Not somehow leaving Him in the background, but recognizing Him as the center of our thoughts, words and actions.

(2) God became man for us. Man as His creature is so close to His heart that He has united himself with him and has thus entered human history in a very practical way. He speaks with us, He lives with us, He suffers with us and He took death upon Himself for us. We talk about this in detail in theology, with learned words and thoughts. But it is precisely in this way that we run the risk of becoming masters of faith instead of being renewed and mastered by the Faith.

Let us consider this with regard to a central issue, the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Our handling of the Eucharist can only arouse concern. The Second Vatican Council was rightly focused on returning this sacrament of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the Presence of His Person, of His Passion, Death and Resurrection, to the center of Christian life and the very existence of the Church. In part, this really has come about, and we should be most grateful to the Lord for it.

And yet a rather different attitude is prevalent. What predominates is not a new reverence for the presence of Christ’s death and resurrection, but a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery. The declining participation in the Sunday Eucharistic celebration shows how little we Christians of today still know about appreciating the greatness of the gift that consists in His Real Presence. The Eucharist is devalued into a mere ceremonial gesture when it is taken for granted that courtesy requires Him to be offered at family celebrations or on occasions such as weddings and funerals to all those invited for family reasons.

The way people often simply receive the Holy Sacrament in communion as a matter of course shows that many see communion as a purely ceremonial gesture. Therefore, when thinking about what action is required first and foremost, it is rather obvious that we do not need another Church of our own design. Rather, what is required first and foremost is the renewal of the Faith in the Reality of Jesus Christ given to us in the Blessed Sacrament.

In conversations with victims of pedophilia, I have been made acutely aware of this first and foremost requirement. A young woman who was a [former] altar server told me that the chaplain, her superior as an altar server, always introduced the sexual abuse he was committing against her with the words: “This is my body which will be given up for you.”

It is obvious that this woman can no longer hear the very words of consecration without experiencing again all the horrific distress of her abuse. Yes, we must urgently implore the Lord for forgiveness, and first and foremost we must swear by Him and ask Him to teach us all anew to understand the greatness of His suffering, His sacrifice. And we must do all we can to protect the gift of the Holy Eucharist from abuse.

(3) And finally, there is the Mystery of the Church. The sentence with which Romano Guardini, almost 100 years ago, expressed the joyful hope that was instilled in him and many others, remains unforgotten: “An event of incalculable importance has begun; the Church is awakening in souls.”

He meant to say that no longer was the Church experienced and perceived as merely an external system entering our lives, as a kind of authority, but rather it began to be perceived as being present within people’s hearts — as something not merely external, but internally moving us. About half a century later, in reconsidering this process and looking at what had been happening, I felt tempted to reverse the sentence: “The Church is dying in souls.”

Indeed, the Church today is widely regarded as just some kind of political apparatus. One speaks of it almost exclusively in political categories, and this applies even to bishops, who formulate their conception of the church of tomorrow almost exclusively in political terms. The crisis, caused by the many cases of clerical abuse, urges us to regard the Church as something almost unacceptable, which we must now take into our own hands and redesign. But a self-made Church cannot constitute hope.

Jesus Himself compared the Church to a fishing net in which good and bad fish are ultimately separated by God Himself. There is also the parable of the Church as a field on which the good grain that God Himself has sown grows, but also the weeds that “an enemy” secretly sown onto it. Indeed, the weeds in God’s field, the Church, are excessively visible, and the evil fish in the net also show their strength. Nevertheless, the field is still God’s field and the net is God’s fishing net. And at all times, there are not only the weeds and the evil fish, but also the crops of God and the good fish. To proclaim both with emphasis is not a false form of apologetics, but a necessary service to the Truth.

In this context it is necessary to refer to an important text in the Revelation of St. John. The devil is identified as the accuser who accuses our brothers before God day and night (Revelation 12:10). St. John’s Apocalypse thus takes up a thought from the center of the framing narrative in the Book of Job (Job 1 and 2, 10; 42:7-16). In that book, the devil sought to talk down the righteousness of Job before God as being merely external. And exactly this is what the Apocalypse has to say: The devil wants to prove that there are no righteous people; that all righteousness of people is only displayed on the outside. If one could hew closer to a person, then the appearance of his justice would quickly fall away.

The narrative in Job begins with a dispute between God and the devil, in which God had referred to Job as a truly righteous man. He is now to be used as an example to test who is right. Take away his possessions and you will see that nothing remains of his piety, the devil argues. God allows him this attempt, from which Job emerges positively. Now the devil pushes on and he says: “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But put forth thy hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.” (Job 2:4f)

God grants the devil a second turn. He may also touch the skin of Job. Only killing Job is denied to him. For Christians it is clear that this Job, who stands before God as an example for all mankind, is Jesus Christ. In St. John’s Apocalypse the drama of humanity is presented to us in all its breadth.

The Creator God is confronted with the devil who speaks ill of all mankind and all creation. He says, not only to God but above all to people: Look at what this God has done. Supposedly a good creation, but in reality full of misery and disgust. That disparagement of creation is really a disparagement of God. It wants to prove that God Himself is not good, and thus to turn us away from Him.

The timeliness of what the Apocalypse is telling us here is obvious. Today, the accusation against God is, above all, about characterizing His Church as entirely bad, and thus dissuading us from it. The idea of a better Church, created by ourselves, is in fact a proposal of the devil, with which he wants to lead us away from the living God, through a deceitful logic by which we are too easily duped. No, even today the Church is not just made up of bad fish and weeds. The Church of God also exists today, and today it is the very instrument through which God saves us.

It is very important to oppose the lies and half-truths of the devil with the whole truth: Yes, there is sin in the Church and evil. But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible. Today there are many people who humbly believe, suffer and love, in whom the real God, the loving God, shows Himself to us. Today God also has His witnesses (martyres) in the world. We just have to be vigilant in order to see and hear them.

The word martyr is taken from procedural law. In the trial against the devil, Jesus Christ is the first and actual witness for God, the first martyr, who has since been followed by countless others.

Today’s Church is more than ever a “Church of the Martyrs” and thus a witness to the living God. If we look around and listen with an attentive heart, we can find witnesses everywhere today, especially among ordinary people, but also in the high ranks of the Church, who stand up for God with their life and suffering. It is an inertia of the heart that leads us to not wish to recognize them. One of the great and essential tasks of our evangelization is, as far as we can, to establish habitats of Faith and, above all, to find and recognize them.

I live in a house, in a small community of people who discover such witnesses of the living God again and again in everyday life and who joyfully point this out to me as well. To see and find the living Church is a wonderful task which strengthens us and makes us joyful in our Faith time and again.

At the end of my reflections I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father!

(Benedict XVI)

Translated by Anian Christoph Wimmer.

Quotes from Scripture use Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE).

This document was originally published by EWTN.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

THE MOVIE, “UNPLANNED”, WAS REVIEWED BY THE New York TIMES; SURPRISE: IT WAS A HATCHET JOB, FILLED WITH INACCURACIES AND FALSEHOODS THAT HAVE LATELY BEEN MORE AND MORE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE GREY LADY WHO DOES NOT PRINT ALL THE NEWS FIT TO PRINT BUT DOES PRINT NEWS THAT IS NOT FIT TO BE PRINTED

 LEAGUE
FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

 

New York Times Covers “Unplanned”
April 9, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s New York Times on “Unplanned”:
 
In the April 9 edition of the New York Times, there is a news story about the pro-life movie “Unplanned.” Of course, the term “pro-life” never appears—such persons are described as “being against abortion rights.” The words are chosen carefully: those who defend human rights in utero  are against human rights.
 
The story starts with an observation about suburban theater-goers who saw the film last week. “A few—a gaggle of nuns in their habits, at least one collared priest—wore their dispositions on their sleeves. Others communic-ated in muted gestures, dabbed at tears, or lingered for long stretches in the popcorn-strewn vestibule at the AMC multiplex here, as if still processing the deliberately provocative movie they had just seen.”
 
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines “gaggle” as “a group of geese” or “a group of noisy or silly people.” We can assume that the reporter, Reggie Ugwu, was not referring to the nuns as “a group of geese.” That would make them “a group of noisy or silly people.”
 
The silly nuns were in habit. That makes sense given that pro-abortion nuns—I have met more than a few of them—tend to dress like social workers. The priest with a collar (note: even liberal priests wear a collar when they go on TV) was, like the silly nuns, making a statement with his garb, clearly wearing his “dispositions on his sleeve.”
 
It is true that when people witness a movie about the wanton destruction of babies they tend to well up. Either that or they are sociopaths. And yes, there is much to process about a movie that is “deliberately provocative.” Films that honestly depict bodily invasions tend to be that way.

“Unplanned,” as many know, has been subject to considerable Hollywood censorship. Ugwu accurately recounts how requests for songs to be used in the movie were denied, as were most TV interviews. The film was slapped with an “R” rating, a deliberate act, and the movie’s Twitter account was temporarily disabled. When it comes to explaining why these things happened, Ugwu wears his dispositions on his sleeve.
 
“Of course, no film is entitled to media exposure.” That’s true. The same could be said about the failure of the New York Times to review the movie—like virtually every other major newspaper in the nation (the Washington Post being the lone exception)—but that doesn’t empty the discussion. Why the blackout?
 
Ugwu anticipates this question and has a ready answer. He opines that “the belief among anti-abortion communities that powerful forces have arrayed against the film has kindled long-smoldering claims of liberal and anti-religious bias in the media and Silicon Valley.”
 
That Hollywood and the Silicon Valley are liberal and anti-religious is about as controversial as saying the Bible Belt is conservative and religious. Only liars or the ignorant would deny it. They are also intolerant and censorial.
 
Ugwu notes in a parenthetical remark that Planned Parenthood released a statement saying the movie “promotes many falsehoods.” I checked the full statement, which is three sentences long, and it does not provide a single
example of a falsehood. Surely they could cite one.
 
In the movie, there is an ultrasound picture of the baby flinching when pierced by the abortionist. This scene has upset a lot of people: some are upset at the violence and others are upset because their argument implodes.
 
Ugwu says that this scene “shows a fetus with a discernible head, torso and limbs frantically squirming away from a doctor’s probe…before being liquefied by suction.” So there is a body other than that of the mother’s. And it moves. Temporarily that is.
 
He asked a doctor at the “nonpartisan American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” about this scene and she said that the notion that the baby is “fighting for its life” is misleading; babies at 13 weeks cannot feel pain, she said.
 
There are two problems here. First of all, there is nothing “nonpartisan”
about this woman—she performs abortions. Second, according to a study published in 2013 in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Medicine, “As early as 8 weeks the baby exhibits reflex movement during invasive procedures.”
 
So the question I have for Mr. Ugwu and his “nonpartisan” abortionist friend is, “If the baby cannot feel pain, why does he or she recoil when pierced?” Don’t adults recoil when pierced by a dentist?
 
I could not help but notice that in the same edition of the newspaper there is an article about a change of leadership at The Nation magazine. It noted that the far-left publication was founded by abolitionists in 1865. What it didn’t mention is that it strongly defended, and lied about, the mass murders committed by Stalin and Mao. If a magazine defended, and lied about, Hitler, it would surely be noted.
 
Abortion and communism have much in common: both are stories about the killing of innocents. And in both stories, the paper covered them up. This is what makes the New York Times tick.
 








Document
Block


Table
Insert a table — perfect for sharing charts and data.

Styles

Table Settings

Fixed width table cells

Advanced
Skip to the selected block
catholicleague.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e7e656b0a27630ee25cd133ac&id=f770d00fb2&e=1fc0fedeee(opens in a new tab)


New York Times Covers “Unplanned”
April 9, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s New York Times on “Unplanned”:
 
In the April 9 edition of the New York Times, there is a news story about the pro-life movie “Unplanned.” Of course, the term “pro-life” never appears—such persons are described as “being against abortion rights.” The words are chosen carefully: those who defend human rights in utero  are against human rights.
 
The story starts with an observation about suburban theater-goers who saw the film last week. “A few—a gaggle of nuns in their habits, at least one collared priest—wore their dispositions on their sleeves. Others communicated in muted gestures, dabbed at tears, or lingered for long stretches in the popcorn-strewn vestibule at the AMC multiplex here, as if still processing the deliberately provocative movie they had just seen.”
 
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines “gaggle” as “a group of geese” or “a group of noisy or silly people.” We can assume that the reporter, Reggie Ugwu, was not referring to the nuns as “a group of geese.” That would make them “a group of noisy or silly people.”
 
The silly nuns were in habit. That makes sense given that pro-abortion nuns—I have met more than a few of them—tend to dress like social workers. The priest with a collar (note: even liberal priests wear a collar when they go on TV) was, like the silly nuns, making a statement with his garb, clearly wearing his “dispositions on his sleeve.”
 
It is true that when people witness a movie about the wanton destruction of babies they tend to well up. Either that or they are sociopaths. And yes, there is much to process about a movie that is “deliberately provocative.” Films that honestly depict bodily invasions tend to be that way.

“Unplanned,” as many know, has been subject to considerable Hollywood censorship. Ugwu accurately recounts how requests for songs to be used in the movie were denied, as were most TV interviews. The film was slapped with an “R” rating, a deliberate act, and the movie’s Twitter account was temporarily disabled. When it comes to explaining why these things happened, Ugwu wears his dispositions on his sleeve.
 
“Of course, no film is entitled to media exposure.” That’s true. The same could be said about the failure of the New York Times to review the movie—like virtually every other major newspaper in the nation (the Washington Post being the lone exception)—but that doesn’t empty the discussion. Why the blackout?
 
Ugwu anticipates this question and has a ready answer. He opines that “the belief among anti-abortion communities that powerful forces have arrayed against the film has kindled long-smoldering claims of liberal and anti-religious bias in the media and Silicon Valley.”
 
That Hollywood and the Silicon Valley are liberal and anti-religious is about as controversial as saying the Bible Belt is conservative and religious. Only liars or the ignorant would deny it. They are also intolerant and censorial.
 
Ugwu notes in a parenthetical remark that Planned Parenthood released a statement saying the movie “promotes many falsehoods.” I checked the full statement, which is three sentences long, and it does not provide a single example of a falsehood. Surely they could cite one.
 
In the movie, there is an ultrasound picture of the baby flinching when pierced by the abortionist. This scene has upset a lot of people: some are upset at the violence and others are upset because their argument implodes.
 
Ugwu says that this scene “shows a fetus with a discernible head, torso and limbs frantically squirming away from a doctor’s probe…before being liquefied by suction.” So there is a body other than that of the mother’s. And it moves. Temporarily that is.
 
He asked a doctor at the “nonpartisan American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” about this scene and she said that the notion that the baby is “fighting for its life” is misleading; babies at 13 weeks cannot feel pain, she said.
 
There are two problems here. First of all, there is nothing “nonpartisan” about this woman—she performs abortions. Second, according to a study published in 2013 in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Medicine, “As early as 8 weeks the baby exhibits reflex movement during invasive procedures.”
 
So the question I have for Mr. Ugwu and his “nonpartisan” abortionist friend is, “If the baby cannot feel pain, why does he or she recoil when pierced?” Don’t adults recoil when pierced by a dentist?
 
I could not help but notice that in the same edition of the newspaper there is an article about a change of leadership at The Nation magazine. It noted that the far-left publication was founded by abolitionists in 1865. What it didn’t mention is that it strongly defended, and lied about, the mass murders committed by Stalin and Mao. If a magazine defended, and lied about, Hitler, it would surely be noted.
 
Abortion and communism have much in common: both are stories about the killing of innocents. And in both stories, the paper covered them up. This is what makes the New York Times tick.
 
Contact Meeta Agrawal, arts and leisure editor: meeta.agrawal@nytimes.com
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

HERE IS A MESSAGE FROM A PRIEST I ORDAINED IN MIAMI WHEN I WAS AUXILIARY BISHOP IN THAT ARCHDIOCESE

> Dear Bishop,

   I went to see the other day the new film “Unplanned,” which is essentially the autobiography of Abby Johnson, a former clinic director of Planned Parenthood International.   She consulted on the picture with its producers, and it’s a very powerful film, VERY powerful, about this horribly evil scam in American life, i.e., “PLANNED” Parenthood.”


> It should be seen by every legislator, every Judge and every person and student in America.


> Her “conversion moment” in the film brought tears to my eyes, and I remembered all the women I’ve counseled over the years, —the ones tempted to abort, and those who had succumbed to the temptation.  The suffering of the latter group goes on, and the world doesn’t care or recognize the double tragedy, —the death of their unborn children and the death of their souls in surrendering themselves to the Lie.  It is a fine film, truly powerful, and I cannot recommend it enough.  As I said, everyone should see it.


> Only Christ is the answer, His law, His mercy, and His new Life.   This is a truly powerful film and it can change hearts.   I cannot recommend it enough;  everyone  should see it.


> Oremus pro invicem!     We must pray for each other!  We are all facing constant deception in this world by the Evil one.

   God bless!    

Fr Fishwick 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE VALIDITY OF POPE BENEDICT’S ‘RESIGNATION’ IS PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN INVALID BY A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE TEXT OF HIS ‘RESIGNATION’ AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW

From Rome

An International Venue for Catholic Thought


Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope

10 Jan 2019

by The Editor

anti-pope-francis

The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.

As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.

This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..

Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.

Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).

Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the  Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.

Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.

Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.

Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.

Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.


Related

The Validity of Benedict's Resignation, Part II: Ad Contrarium

The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation, Part II: Ad Contrarium

In “2013 Conclave”

The Validity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation must be questioned — Part I

The Validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation must be questioned — Part I

In “2013 Conclave”

Gänswein, Brandmüller & Burke: Please read Canon 17!

Gänswein, Brandmüller & Burke: Please read Canon 17!

In “Editorials”This entry was posted in EcclesiologyNews and tagged antipopeBergoglioCanon 188Canon 332 §2Jorge Mario BergoglioPope Francis.

Post navigation

← Has Cardinal Brandmüller ever read Canon 332 §2?Christ regards Benedict alone, as His Vicar on Earth →

4 comments on “Canon Law itself declares Pope Francis, AntiPope”

  1. The Editor says:January 10, 2019 at 4:33 pm I will point out immediately, that the primary and in some cases the only tactic liars will take against this article, will be to boo hoo me that I said what I said, rather than whether the statement is founded upon the truth. They will do this because they cannot contest the truth upon which it is founded with any valid reasons. Next they will call me a sedevacantist, even though in the article I expressly affirm that Benedict is the pope. Other than that, they will probably call me names such as heretic, or schismatic, since for them only the heresies and false claims of Bergoglio remain as the definition of truth: the Gospels, Tradition, the perennial magisterium, the recent magisterium of Benedict XVI, Canon Law be damned, they will say under their breath.
  2. Albinus Falco says:January 10, 2019 at 7:29 pm Your thesis entails that not only every Cardinal and Bishop in union with the Church but also the Pope himself (Benedict) gave public approval (at least tacit) in 2013 to the fact that Francis became a valid Pope in 2013. Your thesis thus entails that the Magisterium has erred in a matter of dogmatic fact. This is impossible. Therefore your thesis is false. You haven’t satisfactorily responded to this objection in any of your articles thus far on this site. In my opinion it is an insurmountable objection. For if your thesis is correct, then you must concede that the Church can err in dogmatic fact. But if that is the case, then the Catholic Faith falls apart.
  3. The Editor says:January 10, 2019 at 10:41 pm The Church has not erred in a dogmatic fact, because the dogmatic fact is that Pope Benedict XVI is validly elected, Bergoglio not. A fact does not admit an error. If you mean to say that the Church has erred in its opinion regarding a dogmatic fact, then again you assertion is false, because those who err in matters of dogmatic facts are ignorant and their ignorance is not ascribed to the Church. If you mean to say that the Bishops and Cardinals are infallible in matters of dogmatic facts, that would only apply if the Magisterium of the Church were enacted to declare the fact, and then we agree the Church could not err. But no such canonical judgement has been made on the validity. As Canon 332 §2 shows, if its invalid by the law itself in virtue of any defect, no matter HOW many Cardinals or Bishops think otherwise, its still invalid. Sorry, your sophistic argument is completely invalid.
  4. antigon (@antigonistes) says:January 11, 2019 at 10:59 am Perhaps yet more notable, regarding Mr. Falco’s flawed analysis, is that in the mid/late 4th c., virtually the entire episcopate, including the pope of that era, either apostatized or acquiesced to the Arian heresy denying Christ’s eternal divinity; & that the laity of the Empire, as revealed in Bl. JH Newman’s magisterial study, not only substantially held to the Faith, but eventually helped to bring the lost bishops back to Her.
    *
    That laity to be sure had Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers & but a handful of other bishops with them (& the Faith), whereas so far we have the illustrious Bishop Gracida, to some extent Msgr. Bux in his call to investigate the validity of BXVI renouncing the ministerium of his papacy (tho not its Munus as the Church thru Canon Law mandates for a legitimate abdication), & perhaps those who for imperfectly admirable reasons have yet publicly to join Bishop Gracida, despite knowing he is, like Athanasius was in his time, obviously right.
    *
    Mr. Falco’s chief error is holding that tacit acquiescence means dogmatic fact. T’is of course quite true the Church cannot err when She upholds truth, to wit, a dogmatic fact, just as it is that tacitly accepting Bergoglio’s a pope has no more a dogmatic quality in se than the tacit & often explicit 4th c. claim that the ‘magisterium’ of its day demonstrated Arianism, not Catholicism, must necessarily be true.
    *
    While a serious & honest exploration would be welcome of why the great 4th c. episcopal apostasy did not in fact constitute any Magisterium of Christ’s, & thus comparably how tacit acquiescence to a substantial error in our own time is no more the voice of the Magisterium than acquiescence to Arianism was then, it’s not even strictly necessary.
    *
    It’s not for the excellent reasons outlined in the editorial above, but – save for declaring tacit acceptance equals dogmatic fact – it isn’t even so by Mr. Falco’s own reasoning.
    *
    Because at no point, despite all the quite undogmatic tacitness, has the Church made any formal declaration regarding the validity of BXVI’s supposed abdication, not to say of the 2013 Conclave. She has not, despite Msgr. Bux’s call for the episcopacy to investigate said legitimacy, even tho that would be the perfect means to declare its validity formally, which is to say arguably dogmatically.
    *
    It seems accordingly fair to propose the reason Msgr.’s call has been met with so little enthusiasm stems from awareness that an honest investigation must reveal what the evidence clearly demonstrates: that BXVi did not renounce his papacy’s Office, or Munus (as well as that his effort to renounce its ministerium, or function, was a substantial error rendering that too invalid, ‘by the law itself,’ according to Church teaching via Canon 188), that he accordingly remains, however inactive, the sole living Pontiff of the Catholic Church, & thus that Bergoglio’s but another in the Faith’s long list of pathetic antipopes.
    *
    Those are not tacit agreements, but instead, as the evidence does & any serious investigation will reveal, quite simply dogmatic facts.

Comments are closed.

We are a Proud member of

Official Logo of Veri Catholici

Blog Stats

  • 459,951 hits

You are following this blog

You are following this blog, along with 1,673 other amazing people (manage).

Saint Bonaventure on the Trinity

Click to get the Book

Recent Articles

What the True St. Francis Wrote:

Click to get the Book

The specious Arguments of Sedevacantists exposed, or the Catholic sentence on How to remove a heretical Pope, by Robert Siscoe

Top Posts & Pages

Topics

Archives

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

THE CHURCH HAS FOR CENTURIES USED LATIN AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE FOR ALL OF ITS IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS SINCE LATIN IS A ‘DEAD’ LANGUAGE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONSTANT CHANGE OF ITS MEANING LIKE THE CHANGES THAT TAKE PLACE REGULARLY WITH ALL MODERN LANGUAGES. CONSEQUENTLY IT IS THE LATIN TEXT OF POPE BENEDICT’S RESIGNATION THAT PROVES THAT HE DID NOT RESIGN THE OFFICE OF VICAR OF CHRIST

From Rome

An International Venue for Catholic Thought

The Vatican has known all along that Benedict’s renunciation was invalid as written, and here’s the proof!

08 April 20119

by The Editor

AP_18073530041706.1521468116

The Falsified Letter of Pope Benedict was not a novelty, the Vatican had already falsified all the translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

April 8, 2019 A.D. — The Vatican has known all along that Pope Benedict’s Act of Renunciation was not in conformity with the requirements of Pope John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law, and the documentary evidence to prove it has been published by the Vatican for 6 years.

The Code of Canon Law requires that the man who is Pope resign in a specific manner, in in the Canon 332 §2:

§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

The literal English translation of this Canon reads:

§2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his MUNUS, there is required for validity that the renunciation be made freely and manifested duly, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

But the text of the renunciation in the Latin original reads thus:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…

The correct translation of this key text is:

On which account, well aware of the weight of this act, I declare with full liberty, that I renounce the Ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th of April 2005, …

This glaring ERROR of mistaking the ESSENTIAL object of a papal renunciation as regarding the Petrine Ministry instead of the Petrine Munus (office) made the act have no legal effect (cf. canon 126 and 188).

BUT TO HIDE THIS INVALIDITY, the Vatican HAS PUBLISHED FALSIFIED translations into the vernacular of the act, which specifically ALTER the nature of the act and conceal that invalidity.  This was one of the key and necessary acts of the Coup d’etat, of February 2013, of which I wrote previously.

The FALSIFICATIONS are these:

  1. In all the translations, the double occurrence of the word MUNUS, in the Latin original is CONCEALED by translating it with the same word used to translate the Latin MINISTERIUM, which occurs thrice in the text.
  2. The syntax of the clause of effect which follows the verb RENUNIET in the Latin, has been altered to make it appear to allow a metanymic manner of signification, when in the Latin it permits NO SUCH reading.
  3. The syntax of the second independent clause following the DECLARO has been altered to make it appear as definitive command to convene a Conclave.

These 2 errors make it appear that in the mind of Pope Benedict there is NO distinction between the Petrine Office (which must be resigned) and the Petrine Ministry (which you can resign without resigning the office). It also makes it appear that his act of resignation of the ministry effects the loss of office.

Now since ALL the vernacular translations have this error, its clear that the Vatican has DELIBERATELY AND WITH AFORETHOUGHT publicly misrepresented the nature of the Papal Act to make it appear to be in conformity with the Code of Canon Law.

But don’t take my word for it, see the Vatican Website to review each translation. In the texts below which I have cut and pasted directly from the Vatican Website, I have colored in RED the falsifications of munus and ministerium, and/or the alterations of the Syntax, and placed in BLUE the correct translations of MINISTERIUM or the syntactical forms where they occur in each.

The Falsified English

The English as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

The Falsified Italian

Italiano as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Carissimi Fratelli,

vi ho convocati a questo Concistoro non solo per le tre canonizzazioni, ma anche per comunicarvi una decisione di grande importanza per la vita della Chiesa. Dopo aver ripetutamente esaminato la mia coscienza davanti a Dio, sono pervenuto alla certezza che le mie forze, per l’età avanzata, non sono più adatte per esercitare in modo adeguato il ministero petrino. Sono ben consapevole che questo ministero, per la sua essenza spirituale, deve essere compiuto non solo con le opere e con le parole, ma non meno soffrendo e pregando. Tuttavia, nel mondo di oggi, soggetto a rapidi mutamenti e agitato da questioni di grande rilevanza per la vita della fede, per governare la barca di san Pietro e annunciare il Vangelo, è necessario anche il vigore sia del corpo, sia dell’animo, vigore che, negli ultimi mesi, in me è diminuito in modo tale da dover riconoscere la mia incapacità di amministrare bene il ministero a me affidato. Per questo, ben consapevole della gravità di questo atto, con piena libertà, dichiaro di rinunciare al ministero di Vescovo di Roma, Successore di San Pietro, a me affidato per mano dei Cardinali il 19 aprile 2005, in modo che, dal 28 febbraio 2013, alle ore 20,00, la sede di Roma, la sede di San Pietro, sarà vacante e dovrà essere convocato, da coloro a cui compete, il Conclave per l’elezione del nuovo Sommo Pontefice.

Carissimi Fratelli, vi ringrazio di vero cuore per tutto l’amore e il lavoro con cui avete portato con me il peso del mio ministero, e chiedo perdono per tutti i miei difetti. Ora, affidiamo la Santa Chiesa alla cura del suo Sommo Pastore, Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo, e imploriamo la sua santa Madre Maria, affinché assista con la sua bontà materna i Padri Cardinali nell’eleggere il nuovo Sommo Pontefice. Per quanto mi riguarda, anche in futuro, vorrò servire di tutto cuore, con una vita dedicata alla preghiera, la Santa Chiesa di Dio.

The Falsified Spanish Text

The Spanish as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Queridísimos hermanos,

Os he convocado a este Consistorio, no sólo para las tres causas de canonización, sino también para comunicaros una decisión de gran importancia para la vida de la Iglesia. Después de haber examinado ante Dios reiteradamente mi conciencia, he llegado a la certeza de que, por la edad avanzada, ya no tengo fuerzas para ejercer adecuadamente el ministerio petrino. Soy muy consciente de que este ministerio, por su naturaleza espiritual, debe ser llevado a cabo no únicamente con obras y palabras, sino también y en no menor grado sufriendo y rezando. Sin embargo, en el mundo de hoy, sujeto a rápidas transformaciones y sacudido por cuestiones de gran relieve para la vida de la fe, para gobernar la barca de san Pedro y anunciar el Evangelio, es necesario también el vigor tanto del cuerpo como del espíritu, vigor que, en los últimos meses, ha disminuido en mí de tal forma que he de reconocer mi incapacidad para ejercer bien el ministerio que me fue encomendado. Por esto, siendo muy consciente de la seriedad de este acto, con plena libertad, declaro que renuncio al ministerio de Obispo de Roma, Sucesor de San Pedro, que me fue confiado por medio de los Cardenales el 19 de abril de 2005, de forma que, desde el 28 de febrero de 2013, a las 20.00 horas, la sede de Roma, la sede de San Pedro, quedará vacante y deberá ser convocado, por medio de quien tiene competencias, el cónclave para la elección del nuevo Sumo Pontífice.

Queridísimos hermanos, os doy las gracias de corazón por todo el amor y el trabajo con que habéis llevado junto a mí el peso de mi ministerio, y pido perdón por todos mis defectos. Ahora, confiamos la Iglesia al cuidado de su Sumo Pastor, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, y suplicamos a María, su Santa Madre, que asista con su materna bondad a los Padres Cardenales al elegir el nuevo Sumo Pontífice. Por lo que a mi respecta, también en el futuro, quisiera servir de todo corazón a la Santa Iglesia de Dios con una vida dedicada a la plegaria.

The Falsified French

The French as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Frères très chers,

Je vous ai convoqués à ce Consistoire non seulement pour les trois canonisations, mais également pour vous communiquer une décision de grande importance pour la vie de l’Église. Après avoir examiné ma conscience devant Dieu, à diverses reprises, je suis parvenu à la certitude que mes forces, en raison de l’avancement de mon âge, ne sont plus aptes à exercer adéquatement le ministère pétrinien. Je suis bien conscient que ce ministère, de par son essence spirituelle,  doit être accompli non seulement par les œuvres et par la parole, mais aussi, et pas moins, par la souffrance et par la prière. Cependant, dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, sujet à de rapides changements et agité par des questions de grande importance pour la vie de la foi, pour gouverner la barque de saint Pierre et annoncer l’Évangile, la vigueur du corps et de l’esprit est aussi nécessaire, vigueur qui, ces derniers mois, s’est amoindrie en moi d’une telle manière que je dois reconnaître mon incapacité à bien administrer le ministère qui m’a été confié. C’est pourquoi, bien conscient de la gravité de cet acte, en pleine liberté, je déclare renoncer au ministère d’Évêque de Rome, Successeur de saint Pierre, qui m’a été confié par les mains des cardinaux le 19 avril 2005, de telle sorte que, à partir du  28 février 2013 à vingt heures, le Siège de Rome, le Siège de saint Pierre, sera vacant et le conclave pour l’élection du nouveau Souverain Pontife devra être convoqué par ceux à qui il appartient de le faire.

Frères très chers, du fond du cœur je vous remercie pour tout l’amour et le travail avec lequel vous avez porté avec moi le poids de mon ministère et je demande pardon pour tous mes défauts. Maintenant, confions la Sainte Église de Dieu au soin de son Souverain Pasteur, Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, et implorons sa sainte Mère, Marie, afin qu’elle assiste de sa bonté maternelle les Pères Cardinaux dans l’élection du Souverain Pontife. Quant à moi, puissé-je servir de tout cœur, aussi dans l’avenir, la Sainte Église de Dieu par une vie consacrée à la prière.

The Falsified Portuguese

The Portuguese as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Caríssimos Irmãos,

convoquei-vos para este Consistório não só por causa das três canonizações, mas também para vos comunicar uma decisão de grande importância para a vida da Igreja. Depois de ter examinado repetidamente a minha consciência diante de Deus, cheguei à certeza de que as minhas forças, devido à idade avançada, já não são idóneas para exercer adequadamente o ministériopetrino. Estou bem consciente de que este ministério, pela sua essência espiritual, deve ser cumprido não só com as obras e com as palavras, mas também e igualmente sofrendo e rezando. Todavia, no mundo de hoje, sujeito a rápidas mudanças e agitado por questões de grande relevância para a vida da fé, para governar a barca de São Pedro e anunciar o Evangelho, é necessário também o vigor quer do corpo quer do espírito; vigor este, que, nos últimos meses, foi diminuindo de tal modo em mim que tenho de reconhecer a minha incapacidade para  administrar bem o ministério que me foi confiado. Por isso, bem consciente da gravidade deste acto, com plena liberdade, declaro que renuncio ao ministério de Bispo de Roma, Sucessor de São Pedro, que me foi confiado pela mão dos Cardeais em 19 de Abril de 2005, pelo que, a partir de 28 de Fevereiro de 2013, às 20,00 horas, a sede de Roma, a sede de São Pedro, ficará vacante e deverá ser convocado, por aqueles a quem tal compete, o Conclave para a eleição do novo Sumo Pontífice.

Caríssimos Irmãos, verdadeiramente de coração vos agradeço por todo o amor e a fadiga com que carregastes comigo o peso do meu ministério, e peço perdão por todos os meus defeitos. Agora confiemos a Santa Igreja à solicitude do seu Pastor Supremo, Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, e peçamos a Maria, sua Mãe Santíssima, que assista, com a sua bondade materna, os Padres Cardeais na eleição do novo Sumo Pontífice. Pelo que me diz respeito, nomeadamente no futuro, quero servir de todo o coração, com uma vida consagrada à oração, a Santa Igreja de Deus.

The Falsified German

The German as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:

Liebe Mitbrüder!

Ich habe euch zu diesem Konsistorium nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen zusammengerufen, sondern auch um euch eine Entscheidung von großer Wichtigkeit für das Leben der Kirche mitzuteilen. Nachdem ich wiederholt mein Gewissen vor Gott geprüft habe, bin ich zur Gewißheit gelangt, daß meine Kräfte infolge des vorgerückten Alters nicht mehr geeignet sind, um in angemessener Weise den Petrusdienstauszuüben. Ich bin mir sehr bewußt, daß dieser Dienst wegen seines geistlichen Wesens nicht nur durch Taten und Worte ausgeübt werden darf, sondern nicht weniger durch Leiden und durch Gebet. Aber die Welt, die sich so schnell verändert, wird heute durch Fragen, die für das Leben des Glaubens von großer Bedeutung sind, hin- und hergeworfen. Um trotzdem das Schifflein Petri zu steuern und das Evangelium zu verkünden, ist sowohl die Kraft des Köpers als auch die Kraft des Geistes notwendig, eine Kraft, die in den vergangenen Monaten in mir derart abgenommen hat, daß ich mein Unvermögen erkennen muß, den mir anvertrauten Dienst weiter gut auszuführen. Im Bewußtsein des Ernstes dieses Aktes erkläre ich daher mit voller Freiheit, auf das Amt des Bischofs von Rom, des Nachfolgers Petri, das mir durch die Hand der Kardinäle am 19. April 2005 anvertraut wurde, zu verzichten, so daß ab dem 28. Februar 2013, um 20.00 Uhr, der Bischofssitz von Rom, der Stuhl des heiligen Petrus, vakant sein wird und von denen, in deren Zuständigkeit es fällt, das Konklave zur Wahl des neuen Papstes zusammengerufen werden muß.

Liebe Mitbrüder, ich danke euch von ganzem Herzen für alle Liebe und Arbeit, womit ihr mit mir die Last meines Amtes getragen habt, und ich bitte euch um Verzeihung für alle meine Fehler. Nun wollen wir die Heilige Kirche der Sorge des höchsten Hirten, unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, anempfehlen. Und bitten wir seine heilige Mutter Maria, damit sie den Kardinälen bei der Wahl des neuen Papstes mit ihrer mütterlichen Güte beistehe. Was mich selbst betrifft, so möchte ich auch in Zukunft der Heiligen Kirche Gottes mit ganzem Herzen durch ein Leben im Gebet dienen.

This German translation is even more falsified than the others, becuase it INVERTS the translations for Munus (Amt) and Ministerium (Dienst) to make it appear that the resignation was a resignation of office!

Finally, I concede that I cannot read Arabic or Polish, but perhaps you can bet how those texts were also falsified?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

GOD BLESSED AMERICA WHEN HE GAVE US GEORGE WASHINGTON AS OUR FIRST PRESIDENT

THE COARSENESS OF MODERN MANNERS

NEWS:COMMENTARY

by Fr. George Rutler  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  April 6, 2019    1

Fr. George Rutler’s latest column


As a schoolboy, George Washington copied out in elegant script the 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation. Later on, our first President tried to figure out how a head of state who was not a monarch should conduct himself with his fellow citizens. His solution was to be a gentleman, obedient to those rules of civility that he had learned as a boy.

Etiquette may vary through the generations, but it bespeaks due respect. That has been largely lost in our time. Opinion polls admit that modern manners have become coarse. People dress with little regard for others and use foul language without shame. Popular comedians elicit roars of laughter from audiences not embarrassed by sluttish words that would have been unspeakable a generation ago.Etiquette may vary through the generations, but it bespeaks due respect. That has been largely lost in our time.Tweet

This has nothing to do with snobbishness, and it has everything to do with moral perception of human dignity. Anyone who dresses in casual clothes for significant events because “it makes me more comfortable,” or who speaks loudly or interrupts others, is advertising his barbarity. Even Viking marauders paid attention to their ceremonial vesture and lyrical literature. A lesson can be learned from the Prodigal Son, who squandered his father’s inheritance and ended up living like the swine.

Our Lord told another parable about guests being kicked out of a wedding because they were improperly arrayed. Poor as He was in material terms, the Son required dignity in the House of the Father. He had little money, but if He had anything expensive, it was His seamless garment. Poor people often have the best manners, and they are not in a position to “dress down” like richer people who have enough money to condescend to others. The Christian has a baptismal dignity that should inform all of his manners and conversation.Tweet

The Christian has a baptismal dignity that should inform all of his manners and conversation. “So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Civility is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “politeness,” but that makes sense only as regard for the dignity of others. People using their iPhones and “texting” in restaurants, oblivious to those seated next to them, are disdainful of God’s creatures and the art of conversation. And those who tolerate cursing, or who lapse into vulgarisms themselves, have little approval from St. Paul: “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).

Consideration for the sensibility of others is supercilious only to those who have lapsed into a boorishness that simmers under the surface of every civilization. And by the way, George Washington’s 110 Rules of Civility were composed in 1595 by French Jesuits to instruct their students. Many of them went on to civilize much of the world.

Posted in Uncategorized

THE MYSTERY OF THE PERSISTENCE OF SKOJEC IN CLAIMING THAT THE ‘PONTIFICATE’ OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL HAS RECEIVED UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE FROM CATHOLICS THE WORLD OVER IS MIND BOGGLING


Sunday, April 07, 2019

Are 1P5 Skojec’s Fear of a Cardinal Investigation of Francis’s Validity & the “Skojec Little Book of Insults” Interconnected? 

by Fred Martinez

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/04/are-skojecs-fear-of-cardinal.html?m=1

Semantics: An argument, or a type of guarantee that the outcome of your statement can be taken in two or more ways which will benefit you in either way it’s perceived. The *careful* use of semantics can be applied to situations which allow you to be right in any reverse query.”
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=semantics&=true#ampshare=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term%3Dsemantics]

The Catholic Monitor received a second comment from the former public relations and (apparent) semantics expert OnePeterFive publisher Steve Skojec that was puzzling. 

But before I respond to it I want to say I pray for him. I am praying because I am worried about him and I am worried specifically about his increasing and multiplying of disparagements for what someone is calling the “Skojec Little Book of Insults.”

Before I respond to his second comment it is important to look at the phenomena that has started to be called the “Skojec Little Book of Insults.”

In 2016, the website AKA Catholic was the first to notice to phenomena:

“This morning, a friend called my attention to a post over at One Peter Five wherein Steve Skojec took the opportunity to denigrate the Remnant and Catholic Family News for what he condescendingly called ‘excessive snark and polemics.’”

“’It’s unfortunate that trads can always be counted on to warm up the circular firing squad,’ he wrote. ‘It’s time for us to drop the snark and the sharp elbows and actually gather people in from this storm.’”

“This he offered in reference to the Remnant / CFN recently joint-published three part series: With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis.”

“… The reason Skojec decided to take a poke at two of Catholicism’s finest publications isn’t a mystery; he made his motives entirely plain when he immediately went on to say:

“There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that.”

“If there is anything amazing here, it’s the shamelessness and ease with which Skojec can engage in cringeworthy acts of self-promotion, and it’s nothing new.”

“Neither is his willingness to exploit an opportunity to bash what he clearly sees as competition (not their ideas) for almighty “audience size” and the benefits presumably derived therefrom; even if it means launching a calculated attack against those who are clearly on the side of the true Faith and have always treated him with every kindness.”
[https://akacatholic.com/proud-and-puffed-up-skojec-exposed/]

At the time, Chris Ferrara called the as yet unnamed “Skojec Little Book of Insults” a “circular firing squad”:

Reply Chris FerraraSteve Skojec • 3 years ago “Oh, I see. You get to belittle the Remnant for its excessive snark and polemics and boast of your own popularity because 1P5 is just so much more respectable, you see, and when I defend the newspaper I write for against your snide put-down this proves your point?”

“The only one who convened the circular firing squad here is you. We never said an unkind word about 1P5, and I have linked to it many times in articles for the Remnant.”

“That proves MY point.” [https://onepeterfive.com/remnant-cfn-accuse-pope-francis/#comment-2915319150]

Before I get to the first and second comments I believe I owe the Remnant a apology for the headline “Remnant & Skojec are Wrong in saying Francis is same as Benedict & John Paul II” because for the most part only two of its writers appear to take the extreme positions of the OnePeterFive publisher: Hilary White and Robert Siscoe.

Skojec’s first comment at the Catholic Monitor puzzled me because he wrote “You know, Fred, research isn’t that hard. I’m not claiming it as infallible. That would be absurd.”

Here is what he wrote in the pertinent part of the post:

This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope. Francis was universally accepted — as Robert Siscoe said, this isn’t mathematical unanimity, but practical universality. John of St. Thomas explains what universal acceptance consists of:

‘All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.'”

“I am posting this today as a point of reference. I see a lot of argument over what “universal acceptance” means, but it’s much simpler than people think. And if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct — and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t — then we can see that Francis was universally accepted.”
[https://onepeterfive.com/a-brief-word-on-universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29]

The problem is that Steve says “if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct” and he assumes it is correct thus infallible, but the only proof he gives is the John of St. Thomas quote.

Skojec in his post writes:

“This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope.” 
But then tells me at the Catholic Monitor:
“I’m not claiming it as infallible.”
Why is he saying “the Church teaches that it is infallible” then saying “I’m not claiming it as infallible”?[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-are-siscoe-and-skojec-apparently-so.html?m=1]

Now let go to the second Skojec comment where he says “Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn’t say they were the same.” But on Twitter he said in answer to the question “You think he [Pope Benedict XVI] agreed with ANYTHING Francis has done?” Skojec said “Everything”:

Steve Skojec@SteveSkojec Replying to @TheCrushedBones  @dhgyapong and  2 others 
No. I think BXVI could not care less. And I resent him for it. 1:23 PM – 7 Dec 2018

Laurence England  
@TheCrushedBones 
Dec 7
Replying to  @SteveSkojec  @dhgyapong and  2 others You think he agreed with ANYTHING Francis has done? 
                                                                                              
              
View conversation  ·      
Steve Skojec  
@SteveSkojec 
Dec 7
Replying to  @TheCrushedBones  @dhgyapong and  2 others Everything. [To:you  Details         

[https://mobile.twitter.com/patrick_coffin/status/1071439564223496192?lang=en]

Skojec thinks Benedict “agreed” with “everything” that “Francis has done,” but apparently for the sake of semantics thinks he has to say “Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn’t say they were the same.”

Remember what semantics is:

“An argument, or a type of guarantee that the outcome of your statement can be taken in two or more ways which will benefit you in either way it’s perceived. The *careful* use of semantics can be applied to situations which allow you to be right in any reverse query.”

Here is the semantically phrased comment of the OnePeterFive publisher:

“Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn’t say they were the same. I said we don’t arrive at Francis without JPII, and that their differences are more of degree than of kind.”

“There are certainly incongruities between their teachings, but these are not irreconcilable. As I read somewhere last year, it’s a Mensheviks/Bolsheviks situation. JPII, Benedict, and Francis are all revolutionaries, but the former two were significantly more moderate than the latter.”

“As Benedict wrote in his manipulated, but later fully-published letter about the work of Pope Francis, ‘The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.'” 

“The inner continuity is real. It doesn’t make them all the same. It does mean they were all, to a greater or lesser degree, on the same team: modernism.”
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/04/remnant-skojec-are-wrong-in-saying.html?m=1]

Sorry, Steve, but if Benedict “agreed” with “everything” that “Francis has done” then they are the same. Skojec sounds like Francis who said that diversity of religions is only God’s permitted will to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, but on paper says it is God’s positive will. That is why he is called the public relations pope because he know how to use semantics like a public relations expert.

Steve and his close collaborator Hilary White need to know that words are not semantic games we can play with without disaster such as the following:


Did White’s 2017 Twit bring about this Skojec Twit: “I don’t care what that meansfor papal infallibility” which means that he doesn’t care if  “Bergoglio lacks the grace of office…[because of] perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election.”

The Roma Loluta Est website agrees with much that Steve says about Benedict not still being pope, but it admits that it is possible “granting arguendo that it is evident Bergoglio lacks the grace of office, etc., it does not necessarily follow that Benedict is still pope. That is to say, there might be other reasons that Bergoglio is not a valid pope, without assuming Benedict is still pope (e.g., perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election”:

“6. As Msgr. Henry Gracida argues on his blog, abyssum.org: If Christ did not accept the resignation of Benedict as valid, because the act itself was not canonically valid per canon 188, then Christ would be obliged in justice to deprive Bergoglio of grace, so that his lack of being pope be MOST EVIDENT to all with Faith, Hope and Charity. But it is MOST EVIDENT to everyone, even non Catholics, that he has NOT the grace of God in him or in his actions. Ergo, either Christ is unjust, or Christ is just. He cannot be unjust. Ergo, Bergoglio is not pope!”

“O’Reilly replies: The argument is fallacious. While it may be valid in logic to say that if we accept the premise (i.e., Christ did not accept Benedict’s resignation) as true, then it necessarily follows Christ would deprive Bergoglio of the grace of office, etc. However, the argument in reverse does not necessarily follow.  That is to say. granting arguendo that it is evident Bergoglio lacks the grace of office, etc., it does not necessarily follow that Benedict is still pope. That is to say, there might be other reasons that Bergoglio is not a valid pope, without assuming Benedict is still pope (e.g., perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?, etc).”[https://www.google.com/amp/s/romalocutaest.com/2018/11/25/against-the-arguments-]
    In the post “Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows? (See: Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?)” the Roma Loluta Est website makes the strong case that Bergoglio possibly might not be pope because it appears no one dispensed him of his Jesuit vows.

This gets us to the second point of my article in which Steve claims with Robert Sisceo that it is a “infallible certain[ty]” that despite much evidence of a unlawful conclave election that Francis is a 100% for sure a valid pope the SAME as Benedict and Pope John Paul II.
Why didn’t he didn’t bring this that up in his second comment?

Maybe because he apparently knows his “universal acceptance” claim is falling apart. That may be the reason he seems afraid to argue against all the evidence that his idea is wrong (See: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/1p5-skojec-claims-that-pope-universally.html?m=1).

The problem apparently is Siscoe, who is Skojec’s mentor in the “universal acceptance” claim, is possibly either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church.

He says “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election… Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught”:

‘It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'”
(TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

The problem with Siscoe’s quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:

“‘But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.’ ‘Verita Della Fede’, vol. VIII, p. 720.'”
(CathInfo.com, “Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal,” December 2, 2017)

Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said “for a certain time”?

What does “for a certain time” mean?

Is that “certain time” immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?

Does this possibly mean that since Francis “afterwards… for a certain time… was not accepted universally… then, the pontifical see would be vacant”?

Francis is not “accepted universally.”

I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was “lawfully elected.”

Moreover, Siscoe can’t have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.

In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:

“[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff.”(TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

This quote of John of St. Thomas agrees with renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll’s declaration about valid popes having to be “lawfully elected”:

Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:

“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).” 

“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.” 
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]  

But getting back to Siscoe’s selective quote of St. Alphonsus, a good place to go to find out what the Doctor of the Church really meant is to go to a scholar who quotes him in full.

This is Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who Siscoe respects as shown by his website:

“‘Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira’s Endorsement of ‘True or False Pope?'”  Note: Having recently learned of the passing of the great Brazilian scholar, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, we are publishing a portion of his endorsement of True or False Pope?, which will appear in the upcoming second edition. (1-8-2019)” [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1]

There is good reason to respect de Silveira’s scholarship has he himself explained:

“In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification ‘theologically certain’ for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study ‘written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .’”[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]

Here is what  de Silveira say in his book “Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes”:

“On this same sanatio in raclice by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church, 
Saint Alphonse of Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms: 

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession 
of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, 
since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not 
been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been 
vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff’
 (2). 

“4. The Election of a Person who Cannot Be Pope 

“The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute a special 
case of dubious election
. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a 
demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a 
heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law. 

“Among these causes of invalidity it seems to us that it would be necessary to distinguish those 
which would admit of a “sanatio in radice” from those which would not. A woman could not become 
Pope under any hypothesis. But the same thing would not apply with a demented person, who could be 
cured; with a child, who could grow; with a non-baptized person, who could be converted. 

“This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits of sanatio in radice , 
would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of 
the election?
 

“A complete answer to this question would require a detailed analysis of each of the cases of 
invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves. 

“Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the 
perspective in which we place ourselves: The election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if 
a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his 
election? 


(1) Billot , Tract de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, pp. 612-613. 

(2) Saint Alphonse de Liquori , Verita della Fede, in “Opera…”, vol. VIII. P. 720, n. 9. 

(3) See: Ferreres , Inst. Canonicae, tom. I, p. 132; Coronata , Inst, luris Canonici, vol. I, p. 360; Schmalzqrueber , 
lus Eccl. Univ., tom. I, pars II, p. 376, n. 99; Caietan , De Auctoriatate…, cap. XXVI, n. 382, pp. 167-168. 

187 

“At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory , very simple: since God cannot permit that 
the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the 
true Pope (1). It would be the duty of the theologians, on the basis of this clear theoretical principle, to 
resolve the concrete question which would then be put: either proving that in reality the Pope had not 
been a formal and notorious heretic at the moment of election; or showing that afterwards he had been 
converted; or verifying that the acceptation by the Church had not been pacific and universal; or 
presenting any other plausible explanation. 

“A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely 
theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church
For such acceptation to have been 
pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?
Would it be 
enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing 
in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?
Would it be enough that no voice, or 
practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?
Or, on the contrary, would a certain very 
generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and 
universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?
And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous 
spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?
And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some 
frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still 
classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of 
his election by the Sacred College?”
 [https://archive.org/stream/ SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissa eAndHereticPopes/Silveira% 20Implications%20of%20New% 20Missae%20and%20Heretic% 20Popes_djvu.txt]

It is obvious that the renowned theologian de Silveira does not think that St. Alphonsus taught what Siscoe claims he taught that “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election… Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught”:

‘It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff. [The rest of the quote of St. Alphonsus is left out.]'”
(TrueorFalsePope.com, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope,” 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

Does Siscoe think that “peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected… nevertheless becomes a true Pope… [by] universal acceptance… curing any defects that may have existed in the election” includes “curing” such “defects” as: 

– “a special case of dubious [unlawful] election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretican apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.” 

– Renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope.”

“… But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed.  A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]

On top of all the evidence above even if in a parallel universe “universal acceptance” was infallible or certain then it still doesn’t work. Francis is not “accepted universally.”

I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Gracida, who denies the “universal acceptance” of Francis, questions the idea of  “universal acceptance” and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was “lawfully elected.” Bishop Gracida declared:

“I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the ‘universal acceptance’ of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic population.”

“The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of the papacy.”

“But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population.”

“From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and dismayed.”

“Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their “acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude.”

“Then the Amoris Laeticia debacle unfolded and now an even larger percentage of Catholic around the world began to express reservations about the ‘papacy’ of Francis the Merciful. There was never universal acceptance of the validity of Jorge Bergolio.”[https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/ ] 

Francis is not “accepted universally.” But, even more important, it is obvious that besides “acceptance” a valid pope needs to be “lawfully elected.”

Finally, I ask Siscoe and Steve to specifically answer if Francis was not “lawfully elected” then does a “peaceful and universal acceptance” overturn a unlawful election?

More importantly, why are Siscoe and Skojec apparently so afraid of a investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the “universal acceptance” mantra?

I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of a investigation.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act as well as for the grace for a cardinal to stand up and investigate and to be the St. Bernard of our time. 
 In fact, please offer Masses, fast and pray the rosary for these intentions during Lent and after the Lenten season.

********************************************************************************


TWELVE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church?  This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.  So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.

If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals.  So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?  His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question.  The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.

His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms.  For example, Paragraph 76 states:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility.  If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.

Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.

What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”).  The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words:  “.   .   .   knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”  (“.   .   .   scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”)  [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.

Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with:  (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.

This is so because:1.  Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2.   Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3.  Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.

Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred.  Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.  These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.:  “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant  act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”.  While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them:  “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]

No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.  

Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff.  In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding.  Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is:   “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.”  (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.)  In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae.  At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”  

His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.  The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. 

In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo.  No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis.  See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.

 Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters.  The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government.  The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ.  After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ.  It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do.  Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation.  Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.  Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”.  But, the fact that “The Church .   .   .  will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.  This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person  .   .   .   in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff.  Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.  They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave.  They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation.  Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals.  If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals.  In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either.  (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.  So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors.  Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here.  May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual.  If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”  “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.   May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume
Un ami des Papes

__________________________________________


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

LEO STRAUSS AND HIS CATHOLIC READERS

Public Discourse

BOOK NOTESPHILOSOPHYPOLITICS

Faith, Reason, and Leo Strauss

APRIL 5, 2019BY KODY WAYNE COOPERBoth believing and non-believing students of Strauss will find Leo Strauss and His Catholic Readersrewarding.

A book titled Leo Strauss and his Catholic Readers might initially seem strange. Is there common ground between an apparently non-believing Jewish political philosopher and a handful of believing Roman Catholic political philosophers? This volume demonstrates that the faithful Catholic does share a range of common goals and interests with Strauss. To name just a few, there is a shared belief in natural standards of the just and the good, a deep interest in the relationship between faith and reason, and a faith in reason’s ability to transcend its own historical context and arrive at enduring truths.

While Strauss himself is dead, his words and influence live on in his works, his students, and his thoughtful readers. One is reminded of what Adams said to Jefferson when they famously renewed their correspondence in retirement. It is the belief of this impressive crop of scholars that Roman Catholics and Leo Strauss ought to explain themselves to one another. The result is a treasure trove of reflections on a range of themes in Strauss’s thought, accompanied by explanation of the areas of agreement, and a careful, charitable explanation of Catholics’ reasons for disagreement.

The book is a collection of essays, bringing together the work of an impressive array of scholars. It is divided into three parts. Part one revolves around themes connected to Strauss’s recovery of natural right and his qualified appreciation―but ultimate rejection―of Thomistic natural law. It includes Robert P. Kraynak’s wide-ranging essay on reason and faith in Strauss, V. Bradley Lewis’s account of Charles N.R. McCoy’s engagement with Strauss, Geoffrey Vaughan’s defense of Strauss’s worries about the rigid and idealistic features of natural law, Marc Guerra’s comparative study of Strauss and Benedict XVI, and Douglas Kries’s study of Fr. Ernest Fortin’s encounter with Leo Strauss.

Part two brings together essays exploring common concerns of Catholics and Strauss. Gladden Pappin explores how A.P. d’Entrèves, Charles McCoy, and Yves Simon thought about the relationship of philosophy to society in comparison and contrast with Strauss. John Hittinger analyzes a lecture Strauss gave at the Jesuit University of Detroit and finds useful lessons for Catholics. Carson Holloway rereads Strauss’s lecture “Progress or Return” and defends a Catholic approach to the theologico-political problem. Gary Glenn contends Catholic natural law has a flexibility akin to natural right. J. Brian Benestad’s essay wraps up this section with a Straussian critique of historicist Catholic theology.

Part three is titled “Leo Strauss on Christianity, Politics, and Philosophy.” Giulio de Ligio reflects on the relation in Strauss’s thought between politics and philosophical investigation. In one of the most interesting chapters, James R. Stoner argues that Strauss accepted classical teleological metaphysics as a true account of nature. Philippe Bénéton brings Strauss into dialogue with Pascal. Finally, Ralph C. Hancock (the only non-Catholic contributor) explores Strauss’s critique of Christianity.

There is a substantial overlap in the themes explored across the sections of the book. Sometimes a chapter can feel quite different from the others with which it is grouped, and one could make a case for ordering the chapters differently. There also are arguably some gaps in what the book covers. For example, readers might want to see more engagement with the work of Fr. James Schall, who is correctly said to be “preeminent” among the Catholic readers of Strauss.

Still, both believing and non-believing students of Strauss will find this book rewarding. Most will agree with Hittinger that “the challenge to read political philosophers in a fresh, non-derivative way” is perhaps Strauss’s greatest legacy. In its own fresh, non-derivative reading of Strauss and his interlocutors, this book contributes to repaying the debt Catholic political philosophers owe to Strauss for the revival of political philosophy.

About the Author

KODY WAYNE COOPER

Kody W. Cooper is Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Service at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and author of Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law (University of Notre Dame Press, 2018).

RELATED POSTS

LATEST ARTICLES

Faith, Reason, and Leo Strauss

BY KODY WAYNE COOPER

What American Conservatives Can Learn from Canada

BY ROBERTA BAYER

When Reason Does Not Suffice: Why Our Culture Still Accepts Abortion

BY ANTHONY ESOLEN

Anti-Discrimination “Equality” Law Exemptions Do Not Lead to Fairness for All: An International Perspective

BY PAUL COLEMAN

Striving for Digital Minimalism: Why We Need a Human-Centric Approach to Technology

BY CASEY CHALK

We Were Parents

BY NATHANAEL BLAKE

Catholic Thought and the Challenges of Our Time

BY RYAN T. ANDERSON

Of The Diversity Delusion, Delivered

BY ADELINE A. ALLEN

Whither Humane Economics? In Defense of Wonder and Admiration in Natural Science

BY CATHERINE RUTH PAKALUK

Can Hatred of Christians Lead to Support of Sexual Minorities?

BY GEORGE YANCEY

Humanizing the Venezuelan Collapse: Beyond Economic Indicators and Policy Briefs

BY JORGE JRAISSATI

Donald Trump Was Elected Because Elites Have Failed the Working Class

BY CARSON HOLLOWAY

A City upon a Hill: Nationalism, Religion, and the Making of an American Myth

BY JOHN D. WILSEY

The Economics and Ethics of “Just Wages”

BY KISHORE JAYABALAN

Thomas Aquinas on the Just Price

BY KISHORE JAYABALAN

Outrage Mobs Might Be More Forgiving If They Believed in Hell

BY NATHANAEL BLAKE

Elizabeth Anscombe’s Philosophy of the Human Person

BY MICHAEL WEE

Taking a Closer Look at Diversity on College Campuses

BY DENNIS L. WEISMAN

Politicizing Pediatrics: How the AAP’s Transgender Guidelines Undermine Trust in Medical Authority

BY LEONARD SAX

Venezuela’s Agony, the Catholic Church, and a Post-Maduro Future

BY SAMUEL GREGG

The Scandalous Academy: Social Science in Service of Identity Politics

BY SCOTT YENOR

Lay Review With Teeth: What (Didn’t) Happen at the Vatican’s Sexual Abuse Summit

BY STEPHEN BAINBRIDGE

The Meaning of Meaninglessness

BY SCOTT BEAUCHAMP

Humanly Speaking: Aristotle, the First Amendment, and the Jurisprudence of Pornography

BY ADAM M. CARRINGTON

Putting Adam Smith Back Together

BY SAMUEL GREGG

Pilgrimage and the Christian Life: A Lenten Meditation

BY CHRIS R. ARMSTRONG

Birth Control, Blood Clots, and Untimely Death: Time to Reconsider What We Tell Our Teens?

BY LYNN KEENAN AND GERARD MIGEON

Equip Yourself to Become A True Trans Ally: Read Walt Heyer’s Trans Life Survivors

BY JEAN C. LLOYD

The West is a Third World Country: The Relevance of Philip Rieff

BY CARL RUSSELL TRUEMAN

Are We All “Cat Persons” Now? How Modern Dating Destroys Intimacy

BY NATHAN SCHLUETER AND ELIZABETH SCHLUETER

VIEW MORE ARTICLES

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Do narcissists ever admit that they’re wrong and sincerely say sorry and seek advice from their friends to try to change or fix the situation? 

Do narcissists ever admit that they’re wrong and sincerely say sorry and seek advice from their friends to try to change or fix the situation?

Elinor Greenberg
QUORA

Elinor Greenberg, Psychologist, Author, Lecturer, and Consultant on Narcissistic DisordersA

When Narcissistic individuals lose something that they value, they are sorry. They can be perfectly sincere when they say they are sorry. Unfortunately, what they mean is a bit different than what the wronged person is actually hoping for. They are not being empathic and regretting doing something that hurt you. They are sorry about the consequences to them.

The Translation of a Narcissist saying: “I am sorry. I was wrong.” is:

I don’t want to lose something I want. I am truly sorry that I may do so. I was wrong to jeopardize my happiness.

If they ask their friends for advice, they want to know: “How do I get what I want back?”

Punchline: Narcissists are low on empathy and self-centered. Unless they have spent years in therapy working on themselves, they are highly unlikely to admit that they were wrong and be sincerely regretful about the impact of their behavior on someone else.

A2A

Elinor Greenberg, PhD, CGP

In private practice in NYC and the author of the book: Borderline, Narcissistic, and Schizoid Adaptations: The Pursuit of Love, Admiration, and Safety.

www.elinorgreenberg.com131.3k Views · View Upvoters · View Sharers · Answer requested by Nathan Locksdale

Rene Henry Gracida
Quora User

Lydia Lerner

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment